Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Early bond strength of two resin cements to Y-TZP ceramic using MPS or MPS/4-META silanes


Özcan, M; Cura, C; Valandro, L F (2011). Early bond strength of two resin cements to Y-TZP ceramic using MPS or MPS/4-META silanes. Odontology, 99(1):62-7.

Abstract

For cementation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconium polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramic frameworks, protocols of surface-conditioning methods and available cements vary, resulting in confusion among clinicians regarding selection and effects of different conditioning methods on cement adhesion. This study evaluated the effect of two silanes (3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate (MPS) and 3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate/4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride methyl methacrylate (MPS/4-META) on the adhesion of two resin-based cements (SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0) to Y-TZP ceramic and compared several protocols with those indicated by the manufacturer of each of these cements. Disks of Y-TZP ceramic (LAVA, 3M ESPE) (n = 60) were divided into six experimental groups (n = 10 per group) and treated as follows: (1) silica coating (SC) + MPS silane + SuperBond; (2) SC + MPS/4-META + silane + SuperBond); (3) SC + MPS silane + Panavia F 2.0); (4) SC + MPS/4-META silane + Panavia F 2.0); (5) no conditioning + MPS/4-META silane + Super-Bond (SuperBond instructions); and (6) 50-μm Al(2)O(3) conditioning + Panavia F 2.0 (Panavia F 2.0 instructions). The specimens were subjected to shear-bond testing after water storage at 37 °C for 3 months in the dark. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05). After silica coating, the mean bond strength of SuperBond cement was not significantly different between MPS and MPS/4-META silanes (20.2 ± 3.7 and 20.9 ± 1.6 MPa, respectively), but the mean bond strength of Panavia F 2.0 was significantly higher with MPS silane (24.4 ± 5.3 MPa) than with MPS/4-META (12.3 ± 1.4 MPa) (P < 0.001). The SuperBond manufacturer's instructions alone resulted in significantly higher bond strength (9.7 ± 3.1 MPa) than the Panavia F 2.0 manufacturer's instruction (0 MPa) (P < 0.001). When silica coating and silanization were used, both SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 cements demonstrated higher bond strengths they did when the manufacturers' instructions were followed. With SuperBond, use of MPS or MPS/4-META silane resulted in no significant difference when the ceramic surface was silica coated, but with Panavia F 2.0, use of MPS silane resulted in a significantly higher bond strength than use of MPS/4-META. Use of chairside silica coating and silanization to condition the zirconia surface improved adhesion compared with the manufacturers' cementation protocols for SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 resin cements.

Abstract

For cementation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconium polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramic frameworks, protocols of surface-conditioning methods and available cements vary, resulting in confusion among clinicians regarding selection and effects of different conditioning methods on cement adhesion. This study evaluated the effect of two silanes (3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate (MPS) and 3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate/4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride methyl methacrylate (MPS/4-META) on the adhesion of two resin-based cements (SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0) to Y-TZP ceramic and compared several protocols with those indicated by the manufacturer of each of these cements. Disks of Y-TZP ceramic (LAVA, 3M ESPE) (n = 60) were divided into six experimental groups (n = 10 per group) and treated as follows: (1) silica coating (SC) + MPS silane + SuperBond; (2) SC + MPS/4-META + silane + SuperBond); (3) SC + MPS silane + Panavia F 2.0); (4) SC + MPS/4-META silane + Panavia F 2.0); (5) no conditioning + MPS/4-META silane + Super-Bond (SuperBond instructions); and (6) 50-μm Al(2)O(3) conditioning + Panavia F 2.0 (Panavia F 2.0 instructions). The specimens were subjected to shear-bond testing after water storage at 37 °C for 3 months in the dark. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05). After silica coating, the mean bond strength of SuperBond cement was not significantly different between MPS and MPS/4-META silanes (20.2 ± 3.7 and 20.9 ± 1.6 MPa, respectively), but the mean bond strength of Panavia F 2.0 was significantly higher with MPS silane (24.4 ± 5.3 MPa) than with MPS/4-META (12.3 ± 1.4 MPa) (P < 0.001). The SuperBond manufacturer's instructions alone resulted in significantly higher bond strength (9.7 ± 3.1 MPa) than the Panavia F 2.0 manufacturer's instruction (0 MPa) (P < 0.001). When silica coating and silanization were used, both SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 cements demonstrated higher bond strengths they did when the manufacturers' instructions were followed. With SuperBond, use of MPS or MPS/4-META silane resulted in no significant difference when the ceramic surface was silica coated, but with Panavia F 2.0, use of MPS silane resulted in a significantly higher bond strength than use of MPS/4-META. Use of chairside silica coating and silanization to condition the zirconia surface improved adhesion compared with the manufacturers' cementation protocols for SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 resin cements.

Statistics

Citations

19 citations in Web of Science®
25 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 22 Feb 2012
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2011
Deposited On:22 Feb 2012 12:21
Last Modified:07 Dec 2017 12:22
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:1618-1247
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-010-0144-1
PubMed ID:21271328

Download